Denier Specialist Solomon Offers up Careful Culling of "Science"

Denier Specialist Solomon Offers up Careful Culling of "Science"

Lawrence Solomon is back in the National Post with another in his series on climate change “deniers” - this time lauding the patriarch of the denial movement, Dr. Richard Lindzen.

First, let's concede that Dick Lindzen is probably the most credible climate change denier on record, even if his actual denials grow ever more conditional.

But it's a leap to go from Lindzen's caution about the certainties of science to Solomon's contention that the case for anthropogenic climate change is unproven. In fact, Solomon has misled his readers on that count.

Solomon writes:

To better understand the issue of climate change, including the controversies over the IPCC summary documents, the White House asked the National Academy of Sciences, the country's premier scientific organization, to assemble a panel on climate change. The 11 members of the panel, which included Richard Lindzen, concluded that the science is far from settled: 'Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward).' (My emphasis.)

The press's spin on the NAS report? CNN, in language typical of other reportage, stated that it represented 'a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room.'

This characterization of the NAS report clearly suggests that CNN was misrepresenting the NAS conclusion: that while the magnitude of the problem remains in doubt, the fact of global warming is beyond debate. Yet, in its most current climate change document , the NAS puts it this way:

How climate will change in the future is inherently uncertain,but far from unknown. If scientific uncertainty about climate change is used to delay action, the risks and costs of adverse effects of climate change could increase significantly. (My emphasis again.)

Solomon ends his piece with this quote from Lindzen:

“… lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.”

Previous Comments

Labelling Lindzen with the hackneyed word denialist is dishonest. He acknowledges AGW; what he argues against is alarmists exaggerating the state of GW science and consistently making unsupported claims. These unsupported claims have corrupted the science of AGW to a certain extent already and have heavily polluted the public debate.
Enough. Regards,

I’m sorry, did the holocaust trademark the term “denier”? This whole thing about “denier” is bullshit and is just being used by “deniers” as an attempt to sidleine the fact that the majority of their brethren is either being paid by oil and gas or hasn’t published any research in over a couple of decades.
Nice try.

Glad to see your indoctrination has taken hold. Objective climate scientists who are in agreement about AGW do not use the term “denier”. Who does? Alarmists, that’s who, to hide the fact that their exaggerated, apocalyptic scenarios are not supported by the scientific consensus.

The term “denier”, in the context of events that may occur in the future with a wide variety of outcomes, is simply a blunt, crude tool to eliminate any and all debate on this subject. Don’t like the debate? Too bad. Get used to it, or move to North Korea. ;) Regards,

Paul said: “The term ‘denier’, in the context of events that may occur in the future with a wide variety of outcomes, is simply a blunt, crude tool to eliminate any and all debate on this subject”.

The events are happening now and in the relatively short term past. You have chosen to “deny” that the flooding of the island of Lohachara has occurred. In fact, you took less than 15 minutes to come to this conclusion. You must be a very fast reader and Googler to find out all of the information available on the island (and one of its neighbors) in such a short time. In fact if you had bothered to check instead of just instantly “denying” something that goes against your preconceived notions concerning AGW you would have found loads of information including the fact that the two islands were evacuated 20 years ago because of increasing levels of salinization of the soils making the growing of crops impractical. You would also have found that the rate of sea level increase in the area is twice the global average and is in the range of 3.2 to 3.5 mm PERYEAR (not a one time increase of 2 mm as one of your previous posts tried to imply).

It is surprising what a little bit of research will uncover but even with modern technology it takes longer than 15 minutes.

For more information check out Sugata Hazra, he is the scientist who has done the work in this area.

Now we’re getting somewhere. Inhabitants of the islands were evacuated 20 years ago. Misleading reporting implies that they “fled” recently. Also omitted from any of the news reports is the depletion of the mangrove areas contributing to the destruction of the islands.

As for the claim that the sea level is rising 3.2 to 3.5mm a year in this specific area, I would like to see the peer-reviewed literature. Is there any? News reports mention none.

Of course the islands have disappeared. The question is why and at present, I remain unconvinced this issue is at it is being presented to the public. Downplayed is the role of mangrove destruction, natural erosion and increased salinization.

Lastly, the views and research of only scientist, Sugata Hazra, is presented. Is he part of the consensus? Does his research meet peer-reviewed standards? If not, his claims may be unfounded. Regards,

Stephen, we have both tried to point out the mistakes and obvious misinterpretations that Paul G and Paul Gerard continue to post on this blog. I have spent considerable time trying to answer his questions and provide the information that he claims is lacking in the (seemingly mistaken) belief that he really wanted to learn the facts and increase his knowledge in this area. Unfortunately, he is using this blog as a soapbox for his own preconceived ideas on AGW. My time is valuable and I don’t mind discussing and debating with someone who is trying to learn but I refuse to continue to respond to people like Paul (whoever he is and whatever his motives are). No doubt next month he will be re-incarnated under another “nome de blog”.

there it is
//
Submitted by Paul Gerard (not verified) on Wed, 2006-12-27 12:35.
Glad to see your indoctrination has taken hold. Objective climate scientists who are in agreement about AGW do not use the term “denier”. Who does? Alarmists, that’s who, to hide the fact that their exaggerated, apocalyptic scenarios are not supported by the scientific consensus.
The term “denier”, in the context of events that may occur in the future with a wide variety of outcomes, is simply a blunt, crude tool to eliminate any and all debate on this subject. Don’t like the debate? Too bad. Get used to it, or move to North Korea. ;) Regards,

Problem, as I see it, is that the IPCC is dishonest in its own claims on the reviewers. Do you ever ask yourself where the “2500” number comes from? The IPCC never corrects the notion generated by the press that those 2500 agree. Even though, as Dr. Lindzen points out, these reviewers have not been asked if they agree. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/LIND0710.html If you are a reviewer you automatically give them the stamp of approval to use your name.

and name calling is not exactly uncommon in the science denier crowd. If you believe in dogma, you have to used whatever means it takes to attempt to kill your opponents, correct? Think Church going after Galileo.

and name calling is not exactly uncommon in the science denier crowd. If you believe in dogma, you have to used whatever means it takes to attempt to kill your opponents, correct? Think Church going after Galileo.

as it is you who deny that climate continuously changes, have changed in the past, and will change in the future, for a variety of reasons.
- You deny that the the fact that our climate was warmer 1000 years ago.
- You deny the fact that historically the average temperatures have varied significantly completely out of step with CO2 concentrations.
- You deny the fact that the “hockey stick” is humbug.
- You deny that there is a very strong correlation between energy input and global temperatures.
- You deny the fact that there is no correlation between hurricanes and global warming.
- You deny the facts that the models used by IPCC is garbage as their predictions are incorrect.
- You deny the fact that Antarctica is getting colder.
- You deny the fact that the sea levels do not rise any faster now than 100 years ago.
- You deny the fact there was a global cooling period while the CO2 levels were dramatically rising.
- You deny the validity of any scientific fact that contradict the IPCC dogma.
- You treat opponents and opposing scientists like the Church (and other deniers) treated Galileo.
Real scientists, on the other hand, like Lindzen et al, do not deny climate change or scientific findings.

Johan, you’re out of touch with reality. What you state as “fact” is in really fiction. You repeat the misleading mantras of McIntyre and McKitrick and the rest of the Fraser Institute cronies while choosing to ignore the science.

There are many fad diets out there that boast about being the fastest way to lose weight. But because they make you lose weight fast does not mean they help the weight stay off for the long term. You need to find a method of dieting that is more reasonable in its claims as far as the fastest way to lose weight at home.

In laboratory studies of brown fats, the research team identified that it is a huge help in burning calories and good for treating obesity. It is very useful, the kind that it’s good to have, and to utilize. To activate brown fat, you don’t need a payday loan for a bunch of miracle drugs. Instead, the best things to do are to exercise, eat right, and not go out of the way to keep yourself warm. Brown fat is an evolutionary development, in that it generates heat when an organism is cold, almost to the point of shivering. Then it begins to expend energy to create body heat. It could be possible to burn more white fat (the bad kind) and offset Type 2 diabetes by activating your brown reserves. However, not all the facts are in yet, so let’s get some cash advances out to fund brown fat research.

Tells the shocking stories of more than three-dozen world-renowned scientists whose work refutes global warming hysteria and gives the lie to claims from Al Gore and co. that “the science is settled.” Author Lawrence Solomon—an internationally renowned environmentalist—shows these men have faced a vicious campaign of intimidation by those who, like Al Gore, seek to pervert science and silence dissent to advance their own political agenda.

Acne is mainly caused due to overproduction of sebum in sebaceous glands of the body. Diet containing much oil must be avoided to prevent from acne. Balanced nutritious diet should be taken. http://www.skinb5.com/

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.